Day: August 11, 2015

Hello everyone, Trust you all are very well. Today I would like to share details regarding amendment in already filed TM application. The Big question in your mind is whether amendment in TM application is possible? The Answer of this question is yes. You can amend TM application before approving by authority. The application for amendment in TM is filed in TM 16 along with prescribed fee mentioned in first schedule of TM Rules. Section 22 & Rule 41 A correction of any error in the application or any amendment in the application is permitted by the Trade Marks Act. An applicant for registration of a trade mark may, before the registration of the mark, apply in Form TM-16 accompanied by the prescribed fee for the correction of any error in his application or any amendment of his application. This provision is made for correction of mere clerical errors in the application. No correction shall therefore be allowed which seeks substantial alteration in the application as filed. The substantial amendment in the trademark, proprietor details, specification of goods/services (except deletion of some of the existing items, statement as to the use of mark shall not be permitted in the name of correction. However request for amendment as to change in the proprietorship of the mark on the basis of valid assignment or transmission; amendment in address of the applicant or...

IT : Where subsequent to search Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153C to assessee-company as by that time assessee was already amalgamated into another company, as completion of assessment in respect of a non-existent company was a nullity and also same could not be cured under section 292B. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Micron Steels (P.) Ltd. IT APPEAL NOS. 19 TO 24 OF 2014 IT : In order to claim deduction under section 11(2) it is not necessary that deposits have to be made out of current year’s income; earmarking of existing fixed deposits, which is free from any lien, towards income accumulated under section 11(2) during year under consideration would be sufficient compliance. Dharmodayam Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Thrissur. IT APPEAL NO. 552 (COCH.) OF 2014 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05], August 10, 2015[2015] 59 taxmann.com 430 (Mumbai – Trib) IT : Where assessee could not provide addresses, confirmation, etc., from two creditors and it was found that in last so many years those parties had never been seen by anybody and they had also not made any demand from assessee for last more than 10 years, liability in respect of said creditors was considered as having been ceased under section 41(1)Asht Laxmi Diamond & Jewellery v. Income-tax Officer, 21 (1) (1), Mumbai. IT APPEAL NO. 6182 (MUM.) OF 2011 [ASSESSMENT YEAR...

Advertise Here

UPDATETIA | Your Infopedia

Find Us

Authors Login

Today’s scenario knowledge is everything. Without accurate knowledge, you can’t imagine yourself in the corporate world. We create this portal to enhance knowledge of corporate professionals (like company secretaries, chartered accountants, cost accountants, advocates, mba’s) and entrepreneurs. Everyone knows very well that internet has supreme power. Now we’re trying to use this power to connect each other to share precious information and valuable knowledge.

We’re very happy to see that you’re continually using this portal to grab and share knowledge with other corporate professionals. We also are trying to provide you best platform for interaction with each other. Thanks for your lovely support and all of you are part of a grand success of Updatetia.com.